When it comes to soft drinks there are two top soft drink brands that come to mind, Coke and Pepsi. These two brands were invented in the 1800s and produced tasteful drinks that could be acquired at the nearest drinking fountain. The first drink produced by both companies, Coca-Cola by Coke and Pepsi-Cola by Pepsi, fought neck and neck from their early existence. Coke and Pepsi being competitors of each other from that day on went on to produce numerous of drinks that mirrored each other in some way over the next 100 years. In this case study that I extensively read I became more familiarized with both brands and more knowledgeable of their backgrounds and competiveness amongst each other. The primary focus is how the brands were conducting business in the 1990s. The following two questions have been posed and I will answer them with supporting information from the reading itself:

1) Is this a good business? If so, for whom? Where is the money being made?

2) Why is the soft drink industry so profitable? Why shouldn’t it be?

After answering these two questions I hope to have explained why the two brands either were or weren’t good businesses in the 1990s, where their profits were coming from, and why was the soft drink industry so profitable and if it shouldn’t have been in that decade.

Is this a good business? If so, for whom? Where is the money being made?

Dating back to the early days of soft drinks, we can see that both the Coke and Pepsi have been competitors fighting for the lead amongst consumers. Coke in my opinion has been the better company of the two due to their early idea of taking their company international. With Coke taking their company international this allowed them to become more profitable and distance themselves from...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...Colawarscontinue: Coke and Pepsi in 2006 Written by Alyona Kuzmina.
Soft drink industry Shares of beverage companies have always been ranked high among other industries. Although, when consumer incomes decrease, sales of beer and soda don't drop that much. Additionally, it is cheap to produce those and drinks are so popular so companies can sell them for a large price. Actually, it is a very unique case, that such a product, which is in the group of basic commodities, is profitable. Both concentrate and bottling businesses are interrelated, because they create one product, but at different stages, they have the same consumers, however, there is a big difference in the structure and most significant is gaining profitability. 5 forces structure of both businesses would help to explain the phenomenon:
The power of suppliers: Concentrate and bottling producers would need sugar and corn syrup, flavors, sweeteners, packages and some other additives suppliers. However, they are not unique and rare products, so in case if one supplier offers goods for unreasonable price, concentrate producer would always have a chance to switch to the other. For example, Coca Cola and Pepsi are biggest customers in can industry and they have relations with multiple suppliers, giving them with that less bargaining power because of availability of different suppliers. So due to the reason that those commodities are...

...ColaWarsContinue: Coke and Pepsi in 2010
Pepsi and Coke fought over the 74 billion CSD (carbonated soft drinks) industry.
--> Nothing contribute as much to the success of Pepsi than Coke and vice-versa
What had to be done to ensure sustainable growth and profitability?
Economics of the U.S CSD Industry
1970 - consumption grew by an average of 3% per year
--> increasing availability of CSD + intro of new diet and flavoured variety
+ Declining real prices --> CSD more affordable
--> Americans drink more soda than any other beverage
The Production and Distribution of CSD involved 4 major players: Concentrate producers, bottlers, retail channels and suppliers
Concentrate Producers
They blended raw material ingredients, packaged the mixture in plastic canisters, and shipped those containers to bottler
--> Required little capital - cost for advertising, promotion, market research and bottler support
==> Once fragmented --> Consolidated with Coke and Pepsi (72% of market sales)
Bottlers
They purchased concentrate, added carbonated water and high fructose corn syrup, bottled or canned the resulting CSD product, and delivered it to customer account
--> Capital Intensive + Involved high speed production lines
Coke built a nationwide franchised bottling network --> Pepsi and Doctor Pepper followed
Master Bottle Contract (Coke): Coke had the right to determine concentrate price and other terms of sale - no...

...A12-04-0025
Coca-Cola’s Marketing Challenges in Brazil: The Tubaínas War
Introduction
For about a decade, the Coca-Cola Company’s Brazilian subsidiary tried to stop the growth of tubaínas (too-bah-ee’-nas). The word tubaínas designates numerous brands of fairly inexpensive, carbonated, and rather sweet beverages sold throughout Brazil. For more than half a century, hundreds of micro, and a few medium-size, manufacturers produced and distributed the so-called tubaínas on a local or regional basis. Brazil was Coca-Cola’s third largest operation and, after Mexico, the company’s second largest international market. Until the mid-1990s, tubaínas’ combined market share did not pose a threat to Coca-Cola. However, in the next decade, due to important environmental changes, tubaínas’ sales steadily grew in Brazil, making inroads into Coca-Cola’s business and jeopardizing the company’s profitability. Rather than the colawar (the name given to Coke versus Pepsi competition in many countries), the real issue for the Brazilian subsidiary of the Coca-Cola Company has been the tubaínas war. Over the years, Coca-Cola attempted different strategies to undercut tubaínas’ growth. Pepsi-Cola, CocaCola’s notorious contender, ranked fourth among the best-selling soda brands in Brazil. However, Pepsi also gained market share, thanks to its partnership with...

...Marketing Mix Of Pepsi-Cola Today¡¦s PepsiCo, Inc. was found in 1965 through the merger of Pepsi Co and Frito-Lay, the world¡¦s largest manufacturer and distributor of snack chips. In 1998, it acquired Tropicana, the world¡¦s largest marketer and producer of branded juices. In addition to the main body of 3 companies, the Pepsi-Cola Incorporation also owns four well-known fast food restaurants in the world; they are Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, and Burger King. Furthermore, with its 4 fast food restaurants, PepsiCo Inc. owns 24,000 restaurants, more than McDonald¡¦s 14,000. Based on PepsiCo Inc.¡¦s annual report in year 2000, PepsiCo Inc. has total net sales of 20.438 billion US dollars and they are worth 44 billion dollars in stock value right now.
There are several reasons why the world¡¦s second largest soft-drink company, the PepsiCo Inc., is very successful in the world and almost exceed the current market leader in soft drink industry, Coca-Cola. These reasons are taste, investment, management policy, and marketing strategy. In this report, we will put our main focus on marketing strategies and more details analysis, such as 4Ps (product, price, place, promotion), SWOT analysis (strength, weakness, opportunity, threaten), Marketing Environment (economic, technological, cultural, social, and competitor), advertising, and target market, etc.
First element of 4Ps is product. With more and more customers¡¦ unique needs, besides...

...• ColaWars
The rivalry between the soda giants, also known as the "ColaWars", began in the 1960's when Coca-Cola's dominance was being increasingly challenged by Pepsi Cola...
• ColaWars
domestically and abroad (See Exhibit 3) C. Cola industry leaders, Coca-Cola and Pepsi, should practice game theory to better understand their competitive market...
• ColaWars
with the well established brands of Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Organization Due to the colawars both Coca Cola and Pepsi have a similar organizational structure. By...
• ColaWarsContinue: Coke And Pepsi In 2006
from the other company to battle with. Pepsi and Coke had a vast understanding on game theory and demonstrated it with their sequential and simultaneous move games...
• Game Theory In Business
Connecticut. The authors research, teaching, and consulting focus on game theory and business strategy, and their book on the subject will be published by Currency...
• Terrorism And Game Theory
strategy to deal with terrorists? Since September 11, 2001 game theory has been used to analyze how governments and how terrorists should act to achieve their best...
• What Is Significant About Developments In Post-Cold War Ir Theory?...

...ColaWarsContinue: Coke and Pepsi in 2006
Poter’s 5 Forces Model
1. Suppliers Power: How easy it is for suppliers to drive up prices?
Bottlers (Direct Store Doors) & Concentrate Producers (Soda Fountains)
-Coke & Pepsi each required closer to 100 plants to provide enough capacity to US.
-Franchise agreements with both Coke and Pepsi allowed bottlers to handle the non-cola brands of other concentrate producers.
-Bottlers could not carry directly competing brands.
-the concentrate producers’ strategy toward can manufactures was typical of their suppliers relationships.
-metal cans were essentially a commodity, and often two or three can manufacturers competed for a single contract
Coke and Cadbury Schweppes had long retained control of national fountain accounts, negotiating pouring-rights contrasts that in some cases (as restaurants chains) covered the entire United States or even the world. Local bottlers or the franchisors’ fountain divisions serviced these accounts. In such cases bottlers received a fee for delivering syrup and maintaining machines.)
CSDs products prices since 1978 are regulated by the
2. Industry Rivalry: What is the number and capability of your competitors?
Pepsi vs Coke
Coca- Cola was formulated in 1886 at Atlanta, Georgia. Syrup known as Merchandise 7X. Future of the drink rested with soda fountains. Products: Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite, Fanta, Minute Maid, and...

...The Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) industry is a profitable one despite the “ColaWars” between the two largest players – Coke and Pepsi. Such profitability can be understood by analyzing the CSD’s industry structure in terms of “Porter’s five forces.”
Threat of New Entry
The existing players in the soft drink industry have much advantage relative to new entrants. First, supply-side economy discourages new entrants by forcing them to enter the market in large scale. CSD’s demand side benefits of scale also makes it difficult for new entrants to be accepted by the public. In 2002, a survey found that 37% of respondents chose a CSD because it is their favorite brand, while only 10% said so about bottled water. This demonstrates CSD customers’ high brand loyalty and their lack of desire to buy from new entrants. In terms of capital requirement, concentrate manufacturers only requires $25~$50 million to set up a plant that can serve the entire United States of America. Yet, new entrants may have difficulties competing with major players’ well-established brands and their large scale unrecoverable (therefore, hard to finance) spending on advertising. There is also unequal access to bottlers and retail channels for newcomers. Most bottlers are in long-term contracts with major CSD brands; also, the largest distribution channel, supermarkets, consider CSD a “big traffic draw”, thus provide little to no shelf space for newcomers. In addition,...